Tywyll

HOnestly I don't know anything about Roll20, other than that it costs. I need something where I can build a map easily and have characters move around on it.

For me, I'd be far more interested in 'running gods as PCs' then I would be in Dieties and Demigods style write ups. I know the D&D write ups is primarily what this book will be about, but allowing players to play gods is an untapped genre in HERO and something of a popular conceit in many games these days. I would be interested not only in the typical powers of gods (immortality, commanding the elements, etc) but in their background abilities that interact with their worshippers (hearing prayers, appearing before worshippers from across the planet, building an afterlife and guiding a soul there, etc).

So, thanks to Corvid, my group will be meeting online from now on. So I need a decent program to run combats online. Mostly I want some thing easy to use and learn, preferably free. It doesn't have to be fancy, just have a map an figs. I have the tts app for Hero and it is incredible, but none of my players have tts and I think learning it will be more time intensive than I can/they will spare.

No, it doesn't have to be. We already have a book of equipment with lists for mundane objects and tables including Body and Def. An extra column with AP is all that is needed. An additional guideline on how you can figure it out should it be hard to build via a power would be sufficient. I absolutely disagree. If you are playing a Heroic level game, then sure, fine. If I'm playing champions? Then yes, I absolutely expect a super to be able to deal with burning buildings and natural disasters. That's what they do beyond punching bad guys. Why are some benchmarks relavent (weight, mph, size) but others aren't? By your logic STR shouldn't tell us how much someone can lift, the GM should just best guess it. Nor do we need to know how fast a character can fly/run (beyond combat speed) because they can get there when the GM says. When players and GM's build characters, they want to know what that character can do as compared to others in that world and the world around them. Having benchmarks, especially for supers ('the strength of 20 men!!!') is not only entirely genre relavent, it's pretty much par for the course for any crunchy rpg. We aren't playing FATE (not there would be anything wrong with it if we were). If I build 'Fireguy' and want him to be pretty much immune to normal fire, I need to know how much damage normal fire does...if I don't, I'm just wildly guessing and the first time I run into a burning building and get horribly burned there are going to be some crossed expectations. If I want to know if my character is faster than a speeding bullet, I need to know how fast my NCM SPDxMovement is. If I want to create an X, Y, or Z, why is that suddenly not allowed? If I want to be able to disperse tonadoes, why is that not catered too?

What are this? But seriously, you make a decent point. However, after decades, I still want to know things like how strong is an average tornado? How fast does it move (as in SPD and actual Running/Flight)? What's the level of TK or Barrier I need to stop a tidal wave? Hell, why is darkness only a -4 to sight based perception when it should be -infinity? Benchmarks against real world phenomenom would be great. Note, this is not me hating on HERO. Very few games do these things either. I just find it increasinly frustrating with HERO where you normally model just about anything. Question about that Object Creation power...does it allow the creation of 'master work' items? Is it purely based on weight and body of an item?

Yeah, that one isn't as powerful as I want this spell to be, because I want something that undoes all bindings, including things without locks (like spider webs or paralysis spells).

In most cases, I would say yes you could dispel those creations, but that's just my take on it. This is an instance were aborting to a power would be something I would allow, since you are defending yourself by dispelling the weapon that is attacking you. Hum...I hadn't connected those dots. Thanks for pointing that out to me. I do have the first one. I'll have to look into the second, thanks!

That...might work actually. I'd prefer the locks open or restraints fall off the captive, but that might work.

In general, I agree with you. But when handcuffs are officially statted as Entangles and ropes as Cling (at least I've seen them handled that way), that kind of implies everything is a power and therefore open to being Dispelled. I mean, if I can dispel someone's sword or armor, why not a lock? Why not a wall?

Being a Goddess of Chaos, yeah, that's partially what's going on here.

Yes, the character worships a goddess who's portfolio is freedom, so a spell that can free a target from any binding or restraint, be it a chain, a spider's web, a paralysis spell is what I'm trying to create. Hence looking at Dispel. This is further complicated that I need to cram as much as I can into a single slot of a multipower, because magic in my setting is built as MPs, where characters have limited numbers of slot based on a stat/3. If I could Dispel a physical object as well an active power, that would elegantly resolve my issue, but I'm beginning to think a Drain might be the most suitable solution. But ignoring that for a moment, the fact that real world objects don't have values that powers can easily interact with is still a gripe. No I don't want bowls to have stats, but I do want to know how much Transform I need to roll to create food from thin air, or create a chain, or a lock that has a -3 to peing picked. I want to know how much strength or telekenisis I need to hold back a tsunami or a tornado.

How does one determine the difficulty of picking an 'entangle'? I can buy a masterwork lock with a penalty to being unlocked. Does a 2d6 Entangle suffer that? Also what about a 10d6? And the spell is about granting a target (not just the caster) freedom, so it should really work on any entangle, hence my looking at Dispel.

Thank you. Yes, that is exactly what I'm trying to create.

So my issue with this are several fold: 1) If the binding is defined as an entangle, skills suddenly don't work...so that option doesn't really fly for me. 2) Dispels and Drains and other powers should interact with the environment, otherwise you are essentially limiting the usefulness of powers (that or skill should interact with powers). I know this is a holdover from 3rd edition where you had Champions and then you had the various Heroic games and they got smooshed together in 4th edition without much thought. This led to kludges like a spell that needs to be a three or four power Multipower to get out of bindings because it has to cover all the options. To me, that seems unnecessary (or at least inelegant). The game should define the real world with its power system so a character can use their powers (or skills) within that framework. This has always been a gripe for me...it makes doing superhero activities beyond punching badguys hard to judge. How strong is a tornado? How many dice does a forrest fire have? Etc. etc. etc. I find the necessity to use three or four different power builds to create a single effect (escape from binding/open locks/etc) to be really aesthetically unappealing. It also is problematic because in my own campaign magic systems are entirely MPs...it means the character needs 3-4 'spells' to do the same thing. One spell to unlock a 'fictional lock' but another to dispel an entangle, even if that entangle is defined as wrapping someone up in a real chain and lock...

So, one thing I DON'T like about HERO is that, while the power system is great for interacting with other powers, there is not a lot of guidance for how it interacts with the environment. For example, I want to create a spell that allows a character to escape entangles and open locks and bindings. I am thinking a cumulative Dispel with Variable Effect. However, how may AP does a lock have? If the character wants to use it on a chest in a dungeon, how many times should they cast it? Who knows??? The same problem exists for spells to put out a fire or melt a block of ice... ;( I know there are some rules for fire in the back of the 6E book, but it doesn't give AP if you want to dispel or suppress or drain it. Ditto for a wall of stone or whatever. I wish there were more real world values for environmental effects.

I think its worth mentioning that GURPS has lost a dramatic amount of market share, at least according to Steve Jackson's qurterly reports. It seems systems to build games are suffering all over.

Yeah, that's exactly what I'm talking about. After the initial charge the weapons were typically discarded or jerked out of their user's hands/stuck in a dead body and they switched to regular side arms. I have no problem with half your str being used for computing damage purposes. My problem is how that interacts with Str Min and the additional OCV penalty it will almost always create. See to me this feels like they wanted to bring damage in line with unarmed versions of the maneuver and then someone tacked on the idea of comparing it to STR Min, when that wasn't meant to be used this way. Treating the reduced STR as though the character were actually weaker rather than just a damage equation, creating this absurd breakdown. Yes, he is greatly disadvantaging himself for almost no gain...not only is he extremely unlikely to hit, he is also opening himself to counter attack and leaving himself wide open. There is almost no case on the battle-field where this would be worth the risk, making it a garbage maneuver. In that situation you are trading damage for movement. That's sometimes a fair trade because some damage is better than no damage. But if you can't inflict that damage or your chance is miniscule, then you are getting movement for nothing and opening yourself up to counterattack that will most likely succeed. It is not a reasonable trade. You are better off just taking a full move and not attacking. It's a bit iffy on moving through an enemies hex. I certainly wouldn't allow it as a GM, not in a heroic game. No, that is not the case. If I have STR 17 and wield that medium spear, having it dropped to half gives me a -1 penalty when weilding said spear. But you also have your weight and physical momentem...being run into by a linebacker hurts more then if they step into you, and that extra force would be just as dangerous with a sharp pointy thing held in front of them. Anyway, I think we should just agree to disagree. I think this is a stupid rule and I'm not going to use it, while you clearly are happy to use it as is. I see no benefit in continuing to rehash the arguement.

See that would make sense. Sadly that isn't what is written. It explicitly calls out OCV penalties for having reduced Str on account of Weapons Str Min, hence my issues. It didn't work that way before 5th, but since 5th apparently it does.

Yes, I am aware. What I am saying is that the actual stats provided as examples of character capabilities do not equate to the chart or examples provided in the earlier section of the book Even if they were, someone with 17 points from flaws and starting points could still easily have a 12 STR while rocking a 5 INT or PRE. That would still make them average for that level of character. The exact opposite. It's gritty, low-powered, swords and sorcery as opposed to the High Fantasy of Taurakian Age. Characters were supposed to be much weaker and it was the first place I saw them call out that average people were 8's instead of 10's. Which gets to my point and why I assumed the average soldier would have enough Str to wield their weapon competantly. I don't really care that parts of the books say 'this is standard' if the stats they provide for actual use ignore that section. I'm going to use the default NPCs as my base line regardless of what the other part of the book say because without touchstones, the points mean little to nothing. Certainly most players when building characters are going to look at comparisons to actual stat blocks rather than esoteric 'average bystander' stats. Totally agree. I still use it, despite 6E's rule. I envision many weapons broken on an initial charge, especially spears. If not actually broken, at the very least torn from their user's hands if you luckily impaled a guy and he fell, dragging your weapon down. Despite movies and books to the contrary, many weapons in medieval warfare were meant for initial charges/attacks and then discarded (like two-handed swords) in favor of close-in weapons like short swords or maces. The flaw there is that you are already penalized for the Move Thru. I mean, if your average soldier's OCV is so high that after their Move Thru penalty they still hit on a 12-...I feel sorry for their opponents (a group of rowdy children, I guess?). You then add additional penalties on top of that. Your two average soldiers, one charges the other. They have the same stats. They both have 1 combat level, which they've assigned to OCV or DCV for attacker and defender, meaning they balance out at an 11- to hit. But wait! Because Joe is using a move thru and going his full movement, he's -1, dropping his chances from 62.5% to 50%. A whole 12.5% chance less likely to hit (almost a -3 in D&D terms). And we are using the rules as written, meaning his half strength gives him an additional -2 to hit! he now hits on an 8-. Or a 25.9%! (-8 in D&D terms) He's less then half as likely to land this hit now. This is why it's problematic to me. I think had they left the reduced Str for damage purposes I would be okay with it, but stacking these penalties makes the maneuver garbage unless you are fighting things dramatically weaker than you are. Speaking of Ramming speed a funny side effect of this fumbling with your weapon thing...because 'missing' on a Move Thru means you keep going, suddenly being too weak to use your spear/sword makes it easier to 'dodge' around someone trying to block your path.

It comes from an earlier Celtic name, which is neither spelled nor, I imagine, pronounced the way Kevin is.

Well, to me that stuff is cruft, even in a survival horror setting. Because players aren't going to build a base with points but with stuff they find in the wilderness, the construct would exist narratively instead of mechanically...like they do in almost every other rpg. Sure, you could add that in via the full rules, but this is about making a stripped down version for quick play. Ditto with removing the powers. Zombie stat blocks would contain all the mechanics for any power they possessed, listed in normal language. How it interacts with the power system would be unneeded and somewhat detremental to this exercise. That said, I would love to see a simplified and streamlined version of Hero, but that is a different project I think.

A little better, but not much. Those don't really fit my setting which isn't old english but depending on the culture more celtic or germanic, with some Russian analogues. At least, that was the campaign where Kev-An played. The one I'm running now is set much earlier in the settings history and is much closer to Greco-roman.

Long, focused aiming at the exclusion of all other activity (hence the DCV penalty). Hero is an effects based game. Getting caught up in the names of the maneuver doesn't serve much purpose I don't think.

I was using Haymakers with Orc Archers last night. Really screwed up my players. Doesn't the Spell limitation preclude using Haymakers? Anyway, due to spells being full phase in my game I don't know how that would work exactly?

Oh This...so much this. If players come to my table with stupid character names, I veto them. If they persist, I just have all the NPCs refer to them as a fantisized version of the name until it sticks. I had one player name his character Kevin. So everyone referred to him as Kev-An until all the other players were doing it as well.